lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20230705172424.e505f5013bfdf44543d9c6be@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 17:24:24 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        jirislaby@...nel.org, jacobly.alt@...il.com,
        holger@...lied-asynchrony.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
        michel@...pinasse.org, jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com,
        vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
        dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        songliubraving@...com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
        peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com, chriscli@...gle.com,
        axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
        rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
        tatashin@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: disable CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK until its fixed

On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 13:33:26 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:

> I was hoping we could re-enable VMA locks in 6.4 once we get more
> confirmations that the problem is gone. Is that not possible once the
> BROKEN dependency is merged?

I think "no".  By doing this we're effectively backporting a minor
performance optimization, which isn't a thing we'd normally do.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ